Talk:Supernatural/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Who's Gina Pisani?

Is the mention of some "Gina Pisani" in the first sentence some sort of joke? Is still Wikipedia so easily vandalized? 93.32.255.193 (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit referring to the Haitian earthquake as supernatural seems inappropriate

A recent edit holds that "Some Christian religious evangelists and news commentators, like Pat Robertson and Bill OReilly[sic], have stated that the massive earthquakes (such as the Haitian Earthquake in January 2010) were caused due to a 'pact' made with the Christian Devil."

This is not factual and is poorly worded. Bill O'Reilly disagrees with Robertson's claims that Haiti is cursed [Summary of Bill O'Reilly show 2515.]. And although Robertson did make such a comment as a part of an attempt to drum up sympathy and support for a relief effort, it seems a distortion of his remarks to present them as saying this devil is Christian. According to other sources, the Haitians who were involved in the 1791 voodoo rite referred to by Robertson also believed they were invoking an enemy of the Christian deity [Bois Caïman]. So it was not an appeal that was made from a Christian perspective either.

Furthermore, the edit, by using "some", seems to claim that this view is somewhat widespread among evangelists and news commentators, and lends more weight than seems appropriate. I see little evidence that this view is not unique to Robertson. It just seems based on the idea that there are some people who will believe anything and thus that additional support for any idea can be assumed. I think "at least one" would be better than "some", and it would probably be better to leave off the quantifier altogether and simply attribute the belief to Robertson.

It also seems unbalanced to refer to Robertson's belief in the substance and supernatural consequences of the voodoo rite without also referring to other sources about the 1791 rite itself and to Haitian beliefs about its supernatural consequences, and also to the many (including Bill O'Reilly) who have dismissed the supernatural link with the recent earthquakes. Why present only Robertson's side of the story? And why present it at all if such short shrift is to be given to any of the more widely-held views of the historical events?

In my opinion, it is a hard example to present with disinterest given the gravity of recent circumstances. Maybe the edit should simply be undone. --Mazzula (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed along with other unsourced stuff. Tagged several sections as unsourced. Vsmith (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments Against

The last paragraph stated that believing in supernatural explanations for burning bushes is lazy. I changed it, but it's my opinion it's still a bit lousy. So if anyone cares to look at it, it could use a better NPOV explanation of how science deals with seemingly supernatural phenomena. 71.10.236.201 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a bit; not sure if it's an improvement. Noclevername 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could be more constructive than just tossing stones at this, but...this is really bad! Is it just me, or does the whole article read like an atheist having an argument with a strawman of his own creation? Don't they have Internet forums for that sort of stuff? Some of it is just laughable; "Scientists say..." What scientists? It looks like someone was just making it up as they went along. Perhaps a more appropriate title for this would be; "Strawman Arguments in Favour of Atheism".

Steve Lowther 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above, and I'm an atheist. This article is ridiculous but I too cant be more constructive than to point it out. Religion and "the supernatural" are NOT synonymous, for one.

Certainly religion and the supernatural are not exactly synonymous. But supernatural religion and the supernatural are synonymous. And it is certainly a good approximation that the vast majority of religions are supernatural and that the vast majority of supernaturalists are religious. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Second, an argument against "the supernatural" shouldnt be that "all religions or none must be true" as this presumption assumes complete knowledge of the nature of reality. How do we really know that both reincarnation and an "afterlife" cant coexist? Or that neither exist? Or that one is more plausible than the other?

You would have a point if that were the argument. The argument is not that all must be "true" or not "true". But that standards for acceptance or rejection should be applied fairly. You see it is all too common and depressing just how often supernaturalists make "truth" claims using arguments that they would reject under similar circumstances when applied to other supernatural religions. In fact they do it all the time. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Arguments against the supernatural" should actually be *strong* arguments. Some strong arguments would be sociological explanations for why certain superstitions are universal. Scientific explanations for specific phenomenon.

A "*strong*" argument appears to be nothing more than an argument that you personally think is "*strong*". So what? Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Science has the laborious task of disproving presumed supernatural events one by one. There cant really be a blanket "argument against the supernatural" THats just not high science works.

Science has no such task. Perhaps people who are interested in debunking supernatural claims have such a task but scientists as a group are not interested in showing why superstitious explanations of reality are not very good, but in finding explanations of reality that actually can be shown to have the ability to predict reality before the fact. That is because that is how you get the recognition of your peers. Scientists cite papers that help them further their work. Not debunk work they have no interest in. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 Ironically, thats how FAITH works and it seems more and more atheists are really just those in search of some kind of anti-religion rather than those truly committed to science and fair minded analysis.  Depressing.

Have a care. This may be more a reflection of you than anything else. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the strange wording of the second point in Arguments Against, but would like to include specific instances of Supernatural critics referencing methodological naturalism similar to [1] BurntSynapse (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is hopelessly confused

This article requires a sharp etymological account of the term "supernatural". When was it first used? How has it been applied? And so on. Is the term "supernatural" contemporary with natural philosophy (BCE 15th 16th) as it would seem to be? If so, it stands against the developing structures of explanation of natural philosophy, which became science. It would then indeed be a term used to either denigrate or denote a phenomena that was yet to be explained by natural philosophy and, later, science. This surely cannot be an article that deals with the profundity of ontology, since the term "supernatural" is so caught up in an embattled relationship with burgeoning science.

But the whole is confused anyway. It is not clear that the topic deals with science, and science is confused with materialism/physicalism at different points. Science is not, as I think some other contributors have pointed out, the same thing as materialism - one (science) is a practice, the other (materialism) is a philosophical stance that may explain such a practice in metaphysical terms. Surely the purpose of the article is to define the term "supernatural" and give examples of its usage, not organise a horse-race between science and religion or ghosts or whatever else is being proposed here.

The admittedly weighty debates that people are understandably keen on engaging with should occur in the talk section on the "ontology" entry. 121.45.57.202 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But if you make proposals about improvements, then there is hope for the article!(?) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "supernatural" in Christian Theology?

Some words about what the theology of different Christian churches considers supernatural or not, would be very welcome. -- 92.229.155.131 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I believe supernatural also means Angel Or Demon for a small fact that humans are not the only things in space or this planet @ all. I certainly belive it can also mean Vampires and things of that nature. I also see that no one else w/ all this knowledge wants to explain this to us @ all because they believe human are stupid and will never find a loop hole to these meanings. I/we can outsmart them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrice (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is half the article focused on Catholicism

Half of this article (or more) is dedicated to Catholic views about supernaturalism. Does anyone else find that ridiculous? If it's not ridiculous, then can someone please explain why so much space is devoted to Catholic views? Where are the Islam views or the Buddhist views if we're going to devote so much space to the religious aspect of supernaturalism? NPOV much? SuperAtheist (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, ridiculous how? History. Would you prefer an article half the size? What Buddhist and Muslim views do Buddhists and Muslims consider supernatural? What is the not–religious aspect and what POV would that be, exactly?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

"the metaphysical considerations can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected. "

1Z (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That more recent theology wouldn't tend to emphasize the term, nor would modern philosophy embrace the term in connection with historically relevant topics in metaphysics. At first approximation, the supernatural being the antithesis of the natural, both understood in contradistinction (in this context, as opposed to unnatural, etc).

Apart from anthropic considerations, the natural, as a synonym for existence or the Universe, (multiverse or what not), doesn't call for a supernatural in any obvious way. But for social/historical or polemic reasons, the term is suggestive of this dichotomy (again, where applicable). The difference would seem to be one of ontological inequality: characteristically, that in some way (preferably inexplicable) the existence (or being) of the natural is derivative of, created by, dependent upon or otherwise inferior to (below) the supernatural. And of course, from a different perspective, that the supernatural is nothing more than a fiction. Allowing that fictions exist in some way, (e.g. $), it would likewise be as a derivation, creation, dependency or anyway, wholly supervene upon the natural.

Historically, the two perspectives were sympatico with natural philosophy/science being the study of what happens under the heavens, and theology the study of that which is above, (somewhat figuratively). What would be a syncretic “mystery” remix of Plato's “world of Forms”, not that I mean to imply anything, the Ship of Theseus comes to mind.

So, to ground the natural in the supernatural, a scholastic theologian might start with various natural world analogs, but any logical dependency would have to be inverted. Not unlike the notion of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, any suggestion it's meant literally would be rejected.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted bold deletion

I'm not sure what was meant by off-topic, but that's clearly not the case.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Paranormal?

The warning has been appended to the claim "Not to be confused with Paranormal", at the top of the article. As the present article Supernatural is declared "Part of a series of articles on the paranormal", obviously Wikipedia treats the Supernatural as a sub-category of the Paranormal.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Basic Definition of "Supernatural"

The opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry states that:

"The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observable in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural"

This is quite obviously untrue. Let's pretend for a minute that poltergeists exist, and one day you see one. Since you have just observed a ghost, does that imply by definition that ghosts are a natural phenomenon, rather than a supernatural one?

This appears to leave us with quite an unhelpful definition of the term "supernatural" (one that appears to reflect instead Kant's distinction between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal).

Traditionally, the term "supernatural" has been used to describe things that may well be observable in nature, but which have causes that lie outside the natural order.

This is a good point and well points out what happens when one confuses the phenomenon with the explanation. All cases of purported supernatural events are natural events that are explained using supernatural constructs. Such supernatural constructs are claimed to have properties that are a-priori beyond the natural. However this does not preclude that for those same purported supernatural events that completely natural explanations could also account for the phenomenon. In the end it boils down to which explanation one prefers and what is the criterion being used to choose. The supernaturalist usually prefers the supernatural explanation not because of how well it explains the phenomena and predicts future phenomena of its kind but usually by how well that supernatural explanation makes them feel. In the end this is the difference between a naturalist and a supernaturalist. Scratch any supernaturalist and their reasons for preferring such explanations is based on the "joy" it brings them. Gkochanowsky 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be several different definitions. However, your example points out something important. I'd like to add some discussion of a model which seems to work better. It is the model that marks natural as being something reducible to fundamentally non-mental stuff, and supernatural as being irreducible to non-mental stuff. Here is one article that describes this in detail, complete with examples.. BrianPansky (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have thought about this for some time. Naturalism vs Supernaturalism debate is significantly muddied, here and elsewhere, by a purely semantic problem. That is, until you have adequately defined what is natural, in other words, the LIMITS of naturalism, then any attempt at defining what is “super” to that, is going to run into all sorts of difficulties. Consider Arthur C. Clarke’s epigram: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In the 1930s, New Guinea natives saw planes and white people for the first time, and it was an experience that totally shocked them (It was the only such encounter to be filmed). Later, those natives set up a “cargo cult” in which they built air strips etc, and waited for the large metal birds to descend and give them all that precious booty. There are still some adherents to this cult. It is a worldview that has a mythical base explaining all the events since that apocalyptic day. Unfortunately, it is all wrong. Still, it does show that it is hard to put limits on what is natural or not. And if we can’t do that then how can we clearly delinate between the two worlds.

The movie 2001, often regarded as being a “God Concept” movie in fact has nothing in it that is “supernatural” at all. The obelisk is the sentinel of a very advanced extraterrestrial race. In a way, it is like the whole human race has an experience akin to the one the New Guineans experienced. Science fiction, by definition, does not busy itself with fantasy and magic, but on the other hand, who is to say what a magical event might be? Suppose for a moment that there is in reality a God who created the Universe. Now suppose that that being is actually a representative of an extremely advanced race. Perhaps so advanced that they can create universes the way we can computer simulations. These ideas are seriously considered by cosmologists. It could be even said that some Christian groups come close to such materialistic formulations of the Godhead. For example, I believe that the Mormons believe our God dwells on another planet as part of a community, and has a wife and family. If so, is he a supernatural being, or just a very advanced one, as Clarke would hold?

On the other hand, I am not satisfied in my own mind that I have actually nutted this out properly. Science fiction works on visions of (essentially) natural and material worlds, but the concepts of things like “fairy land” and suchlike seems to lie outside this. “Lord of the Rings” does not look or feel like science fiction, even though Tolkein and now Peter Jackson have gone to great lengths to give the people and communities dealt with there as much detail and history as possible. Yet, there are various moral concepts that take over the landscape here. Perhaps, it is the idea that good and evil have an ontological reality that makes these to be essentially supernatural and religious works. The idea that good and evil are not just interpretations but realities in the Universe. Myles325a 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Webster’s dates the word “supernatural” to the 15th century. I suspect that the word supernatural came about when people started questioning miracles. That century and the century prior to that presented great challenges to people who accepted the major religion of Europe. It saw endless war, great plagues, papal schism, peasant uprisings, a deeply corrupt clergy and the creation of Protestantism. My guess is that a great deal of distrust was created at the time regarding miracles and the claims of the church and I suspect that the term “supernatural” was coined to place these claims above examination. (An interesting semi-fictional account of that time can be found in "A Distant Mirror", Tuchman, Barbara, Alfred A, Knopf 1978) Gkochanowsky (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Important discussion to be having. The term 'supernatural' is not very old (a few hundred years?). Perhaps the huge chasm between 'nature' and 'super-nature' is not so wide? Perhaps there's more to nature than we know? - Dale Campbell

The etymology suggests that the concept of "supernatural" developed alongside a new understanding of "natural." But that is neither here nor there. Myles raises several interesting points but the only way to address them is by complying with NPOV and NOR. This means we need verifiable sources for definitions of "supernatural" and my bet is that there are a variety of definitions reflecting different notable points of view, and all notable points of view should be represented and correctly identified. The opening definition, however flawed it may seem to us, may be - may be one verifiable point of view and we should include it whether we like it or not. The question is not whether it makes sense to us, but whether it can be linked to a verifiable point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)